You don’t have to be a committed Republican or Democrat to acknowledge that the State of Wisconsin has just gone through one of the most divisive and unsettling periods in the state’s history. We have been in a perpetual election mode since the general election of November 2010. That election swept Republican majorities into both chambers of the legislature; and besides capturing the statehouse, the Republicans found themselves in control of the State Attorney General’s Office and a conservative majority in the State Supreme Court. The liberal political left reacted and thus began the power struggle using every legal means possible to change the power matrix.
Recall
Beginning in 1905, then Governor Bob La Follette (“Fighting Bob"), began the push for Wisconsin to have a recall law. The idea was based on the principle that the public should have a means to directly challenge and remove public officials in the state of Wisconsin who were not performing to the expectations of the electorate. A law was passed in 1911 and then a constitutional amendment was finalized and took effect in 1926. Until recently the recall provision was used sparingly and never was a major issue. However, with the results of the election of November 2010, all that changed. The Republicans, who gained complete control, began passing their “wish list of legislation and reforms” and alienated nearly half of the electorate, resulting in 16 recalls in a 16-month period. We could debate from now and untill the cows come home whether the recalls were justified or not.
In hind sight, both the politically right and left now see that the recall law probably should be amended. Some are calling for the elected official to be removed from office only based on malfeasance; but, that is already addressed within the state constitution’s impeachment section. Other’s want to see recall removed completely, while still others want to see a change in criteria and conditions for recall. The political left should only support the option of changing the criteria for recall, primarily the number of signatures required to trigger the recall.
Not all elected offices are of equal importance and the impact of a recall on governmental functioning is not equal either. Officials who stand for statewide election are of much greater importance than officials elected to local districts, counties and municipalities. Therefore, the criteria for recall should be different for officials based on whether they are elected by statewide elections or limited local elections.
Currently, to recall an elected official in the State of Wisconsin, a recall can be triggered in state races by the accumulation of 25 percent of qualified electors during the last election for governor. The question posed is if this should remain as the criteria for recall. I maintain that for some positions that it is sufficient and for others it isn’t. I recommend the following recall signature levels:
- All local elected positions should remain at the 25 percent level.
- State Assembly and Senate Representatives should remain at the 25 percent level.
- Secretary of State should be 35 percent.
- State Attorney General should be 35 percent.
- Lt. Governor should be 35 percent.
- Governor should be 45 percent.
- Supreme Court Justice should be 45 percent.
- U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator should be 45 percent.
Currently, once a recall signature campaign begins, the incumbent who is the target of the recall is able to begin accumulating funds for use in defense of a recall election. This provision should be dropped and all recall campaigns should be publically financed once the signature collection officially begins. No campaigning could occur by any candidate, incumbent included; until the G.A.B. certifies that sufficient numbers have been collected to trigger the recall. At that point, candidates could begin expending the government provided funds.
Recall campaign financial limits
The 16 recalls have been estimated that between public and private funds, to have came to represent expenditures of around $125 million. This is clearly obscene and requires positive action to eliminate buying elections through excessive campaign donations and third party actions. Our goal should be to level the playing field and make running for political office under recall as inexpensive as possible to gain responsible leadership. I propose that recall campaign financial limits should be limited to the following:
- Governor - $5 million to each qualified candidate
- Lt. Governor – $2.5 million to each qualified candidate
- State Supreme Court Justice - $2.5 million to each qualified candidate
- Attorney General - $2.5 million to each qualified candidate
- Secretary of State - $2.5 million to each qualified candidate
- State Assembly Representative - $1.5 million to each qualified candidate
- State Senate Representative - $1.5 million to each qualified candidate
- U.S. Congressional Representative - $5 million to each qualified candidate
- U.S. Senator - $5 million to each qualified candidate
- County Officials - $1 million to each qualified candidate
- Municipal Officials - $1 million to each qualified candidate
- Village and School Board Elected Officials - $50,000 to each qualified candidate
I know that there will be many who will view these changes as making it too easy to recall an elected official. However, the purpose of a recall is obvious, to keep politicians from promising one thing and doing something else. This is nonpartisan and doesn’t give an edge to either the political right or left. By rationalizing the signatures needed to trigger a recall, recalls will only again occur on a rare basis. By severely limiting campaigns to public funding only with strict conditions will reduce the “buying of elections” by outspending the competition.
Recall funding revenue sources
Funding for such changes will always be of a primary concern to some, especially in light of the current feelings about cutting the size of government. However, the recall process is so important and getting the obscene levels of money out of the equation, it is imperative to publically fund recall elections. My preferred means to fund recall elections would be to set up an isolated special fund, administered by the Government Accountability Board, from an additional 1/2 percent added to state sales tax. This would mean that the state sales tax would increase from 5 percent to 5.5 percent. This could also set the precedent for public funding of all state elections in the future.
It is time that rationality took over after this tumultuous period. No matter the political leanings, we have everything to gain and little to lose by amending the current recall provision; knowing full well such changes will require amending the State Constitution.
On the surface your "baseline" requirements may sound like a good thing. After all, all other things being equal I would rather have a person with appropriate education or training in the position. But that is my choice as a voter. By establishing your "baseline" you are restricting people from running for an elected position, whether it is by law or social practice. By the way, Ohio is now in worse shape that it was earlier thanks to the direct legislation to repeal union abusive tactics. That is why we live in a republic and not a democracy. We elect our leaders to do their research, listen to the experts and debate the issues. And yes, absolutely, their most important job is to listen to their constituents. It is way too easy to stir up the flames of fanaticism for the short term. I wonder how the citizens of Ohio would vote today knowing how much their situation has become?
Lyle has you all in a tizzy. ACT 10 is firmly in place. Cops state wide screw you with their union. The biggest union, the Wisconsin state legislature, continues to screw you with their wages and benefits that you can’t change and neither will they. Good going dem’s and repub’s! No one won in your stupid recall election. Heheheheh!
I'm really confused here! First you chastise Walker and the CU decision which allowed him to allegedly outspend his political opponent and supporters by a large margin, while completely ignoring the fact that the Issue 2 campaign against Kasich's SB5 outspent the support side by a 4:1 margin, and actually raised and spent more money than Walker did in the recall campaign, with one lefty group in OH raising and spending more than $30M alone! I guess that elections bought with CU money are indeed acceptable to Bren, that is, so long as it's the side that Bren supports coming up with more money, right? Sorry, but that just seems a bit hypocritical to Hoffa for some reason or another. http://news.yahoo.com/unsustainable-spending-habits-prompt-more-layoffs-ohio-schools-211700762.html As this article shows, Ohio voters have consistently voted against higher taxes during the economic recession, but then vote in favor of allowing the public sector employees to have their way with the state and local governments. That's an extremely mixed message, isn't it? Thus, the only solution in OH was en mass waves of public employee layoffs. So, I guess that means that Ohians essentially voted to fire many of their public sector neighbors during an economic recession.
What a great and consistent 'movement' you're supporting!
Seniority is a measure of merit. Those that have continuously given a good job performance have proven over time that they are not only contributing to the success of an organization, but they have been consistent contributors and their annual or semi-annual evaluations provide proof positive of that performance. The very idea that because someone has been in the same job position for a long time shouldn't make them suspect of poor performance. Also, denying a worker the security of longevity through first in and last out is eliminating a long standing value of loyalty. Employment contracts between employer and employee are social in nature; the breaking of a contract because of longevity is highly unethical and counterproductive. In the private sector I have seen time and time again the moving out of older workers to save money on salary and benefits. The older worker usually makes a higher salary and adds costs to benefits because of the likelihood of having more illnesses. Disallowing for seniority is nothing more than another form of age discrimination.
My children experienced this recently with a teacher 5 years from retirement. In my oldest child's class she only spent 20 minutes in front of the class and the rest of the time reading magazines. By the time my youngest went through, just a couple years later, she just handed out the assignment and then began to read her magazines. I will temper that example with the other end. The year after my oldest had that particular teacher, they had an outstanding teacher who was eligible to retire the previous year. I wish she had stuck around until my youngest had her, but she retired the year before. I was also told by other parents that the first teacher was always in a bad mood, annoyed easily and just not a good person to be around. I got along great with the second. I suspect it was because she knew she was doing a quality job and was happy with what she was accomplishing at work. AND, there are state and federal laws that protect older workers from being unjustly laid off.
As you claim federal and state laws protect older workers, that's a pure fantasy. All of the burden is on the worker, including the costs. Employers know how to get around the provisions of the laws. Claiming age discrimination and winning the case is hard to impossible. I've testified in discovery and in court and I can attest to the difficulty even when the evidence is overwhelming.
The days are ending that unions can freely campaign and spend money as they wish. If you want real campaign reform, you must limit campaign contributions to individual donors, with a cap on the amounts they donate. No more PACS, no more special interest money; period.
Did you upset someone Lyle ;-)
I hope you had a chance to see my proposed amendment to the recall provision regarding redistricting in my original comment to your blog.
I don't see how the 10th amendment applies here, as what you are proposing is a violation of the 1st amendment. Isn't this exactly what the CU ruling was all about?
A special interest group may spend as much as they wish to collect signatures, as long as the rules are followed. It's up to each citizen to make up their mind to sign, and, if they believe they were coerced, report it.
The baseline is not specifically a set of job requirements but rather a guide. If the voting public an informal standard on which to measure candidates we would all be better served. For example, if someone does not have a degree (Scott Walker) or an unrelated degree (Kleefisch) it should not preclude their candidacy but they should be prepared to present the case for why they are more qualified than their degreed challenger. I think you would agree that this is appropriate. We have had recent situations where candidates' qualifications are questionable (for example, Sarah Palin's appearance on the GOP presidential ticket with then one-year's experience as a governor and an undergrad degree in journalism). Several GOP acquaintances shared Palin was the reason they voted for Obama, they felt she did not represent the best of their party. I understand that union-stripping legislation in some form was almost immediately re-introduced in Ohio. It's a recession so financial challenges remain, everywhere.
"I think you would agree that this is appropriate." Actually, I couldn't disagree more! Where in the Constitution does it state that a candidate for public office has to have a college degree, and even then, only degrees in areas that Bren feels is appropriately indicative of being able to provide solid governmental leadership? In fact, our Constitution expressly does the exact opposite, with only three qualifiers being present - citizenship, minimum age, and continuous residency. Don't you think that if our founders had intended that only formally educated people in certain disciplines should qualify for an executive level candidacy / position, that they would have expressly inserted such an additional qualifier(s) into Article II, Section I? After, all, these were pretty sharp guys, weren't they? Personally, I had originally intended to vote third party / independent in 2008 until Palin joined the McCain ticket - and I know several others with a similar sentiment. I found her to be an aptly qualified leader. Just because she didn't know everything about every issue didn't mean that she was incapable of researching an issue and coming to a well reasoned conclusion, does it? Obviously, Obama doesn't understand how global economies of scale work, but I don't see you criticizing his lack of understanding as a detriment. I'd take 100 Palins over 1 Obama! Drop the intellectual elitism crap Bren - it's a failing argument and makes you look conceited!
"That method in Wisconsin would effectively pull ALEC's teeth and keep the multi-state, cookie-cutter legislation out of Wisconsin…." If that was true, then how come Walker and most of the GOP legislators retained their seats? After all, this was in fact a recall on the issues, wasn't it? I know that the Barrett campaign tried to make it about the man, but if that were indeed true, then why the recalls against all the GOP senators? In reality Bren, not all ALEC legislation is bad / evil as you seem to think it is. After all, the people that comprise ALEC are Americans - they live here, work here, raise children here, etc. So why do you honestly think that ALEC wants to turn America into a third world waste land? Add to that, there wasn't a single piece of ALEC cookie cutter legislation that was passed under the Walker administration, was there? BTW - Once again, nice execution of the shifting the subject strategy / tactic when you've been called out - you're getting quite good at it ;-)
Mr. Trivedi was known, was on the ballot, had a website, and received votes in the recall election in every county in the state. The fact of the matter is that he was weak on platform, although, his was much more developed than Barrett's. Honestly, Walker was the only person on the ballot that appealed to conservatives. However, Mr. Trivedi was positioned as a slightly left of center moderate. Thus, it's the liberals that should have been turning out for him had they done their homework. But for some reason, I noticed that you and other anti-Walkerites that post here were only ever backing no platform Barrett. Why is that Bren? Is a law degree so much better than a medical degree? Hari's platform was 10 times more developed than Barrett's, and he was just as educated and qualified to lead as Barrett, plus he didn't have the baggage of Barrett's negative record in Milwaukee. And, in an issue driven recall, as you claimed it was, shouldn't you have been backing the issue driven man, Trivedi? You're so hypocritical and full of spin that everytime I read one of your recent posts, I get dizzy ;-)